192 ARTICLE 35.

ARTICLE 35.

EVIDENCE.

	Competency of Witnesses. 4A. Illegal search or seizure; when evidence so obtained inadmissi- ble. Attendance and Pay of Witnesses. 8A. Superintendent of Maryland Tu- berculosis Sanatorium-when not required to attend as witness.	Proof of Accounts. 54A. Proof by written record, entries, etc. Public Statutes, Office Copies and Official Certificates. 56A. Publications covered. 56B. Uniform interpretation. 56C. Name of act.

Competency of Witnesses.

3.

Legatees under will competent to testify as to statements of testator in suit
between executor and another as to whether testator owned deposit account.
Schaefer v. Spear, 148 Md. 626.

Evidence in suit against administratrix for services rendered, properly ruled
out either as immaterial or as prohibited by this section. Knight v. Knight. 155
Md. 251.

Exclusion of evidence under this section commented on in a case involving
mental capacity to execute deed of trust, and undue influence. Callis v. Thomas,
154 Md. 232.

Intention of this section. To third from last note under heading "Incompe-
tency, " etc., on page 1377, vol. 1, of Code, add Griffith v. Benzinger. 144 Md. 595.

4.

Provision of this section re refusal of traverser to testify not violated by prov-
ing what he voluntarily testified to at former trial. Henze v. State, 154 Md. 346.

Plaintiff's evidence of wife's misconduct being uncorroborated, disregarded.
Lang v. Lang, 155 Md. 472.

No divorce on husband's testimony as to wife's misconduct before marriage,
unknown to him, unless corroborated; this section does not apply to proceeding
for separate maintenance. Wiegand v. Wiegand, 155 Md. 645.

This section referred to in dismissing bill for divorce—see notes to art. 16,
sec. 39. Proudfoot v. Proudfoot, 154 Md. 586.

This section referred to in holding proof insufficient for divorce a mensa.
Oertel v. Oertel, 145 Md. 178.

Corroboration necessary in suit for alimony; proof sufficient. Silverberg v.
Silverberg, 148 Md. 691.

Corroboration necessary for divorce on ground of abandonment; proof insuffi-
cient. Owings v. Owings, 148 Md. 127.

1929, ch. 194.

4A. No evidence in the trial of misdemeanors shall be deemed admis-
sible where the same shall have been procured by, through, or in conse-
quence of any illegal search or seizure or of any search and seizure pro-
hibited by the Declaration of Rights of this State; nor shall any evidence
in such cases be admissible if procured by, through or in consequence of a